Shri Amandeep Singh , Punjab V. ITO, Ward-1, Sriganganagar

ITA 252/JODH/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6895 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K SINGI LD
• Assessee Lawyers: VIKASH CHHABRA LD
• Keywords: Application of stay; Additional evidence; Tangible material
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 147; 69; 148; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI N.K.SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.252/JODH/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SH. AMANDEEP SINGH PUNJAB [PAN :HMJPS 7155A] VS . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SRIGANGANAGAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) S.A. NO.06/JODH/2018 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.252/JODH/ 2018) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SH. AMANDEEP SINGH PUNJAB [PAN :HMJPS 7155A] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SRIGANGANAGAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SH. VIKASH CHHABRA LD. CA RESPONDENT BY : SH. P.K. SINGI , LD. DR DATE OF HEARING: 01/05/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 01/05/2019 ORDER PER N.K.CHOUDHRY THE INSTANT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSES SEE/APPELLANT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.02.2018 IMPUGNED HEREIN PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), BIKANER U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX AC T 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE 'ACT') WHEREBY THE LD. C IT(A) HAS AFFIRMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.12.2016 PASSED BY THE ITO, WARD-1, SRI GANGANAGAR U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. 2 ITA NO.252/JODH/2018 & S.A. NO.06/JODH/2018 SHRI AMAND DEEP SINGH VS. ITO 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND STATUTORY NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED, IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE NEITHER COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE NOR FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME THEREAFTER STATUTORY NOTICES U/S 142(1) HAVE BEEN ISSUED, HOWE VER THE SAME COULD NOT BE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE DUE TO ONE OR THE OTHER REASON. THE AO ALSO ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ALONG WITH N OTICE U/S 142(1) ON 19.12.2016 REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO ATTEND THE PROCEEDINGS ON 23.12.2016 AND DISPATCHED THE NOTICE THROUGH SPEED POST AND SIMULTANEOUSLY GOT SERVED BY AFFIXTURE, HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR ON THE STIPULATED DATE. IT REFLECTS FROM REC ORD AS WELL AS FROM ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT SENT A LETTER TO THE AO TO THE EFFECT , SINCE HE CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE AFFIXTURE OF NOTICE ONLY ON 21.12.20 16 THEREFORE WITHIN SUCH A SHORT SPAN, HE COULD NOT PREPARE AND ATTEND THE HEARING ON 23.12.2016. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEDE TO THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERING THE CASE AS TIME BARRING, ULTIMATELY FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT ON DATED 29.12.2016 BY MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.18,58,780/- . THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A) ON VARIOUS GROUNDS WHICH FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY AND READY REF ERENCE ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW. '1. THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 AND THE ORDER P ASSED BY THE LD. AO U/S 144 R.W. 147 ARE ILLEGAL, BAD IN LAW AND WI THOUT JURISDICTION AND LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT. 2. THAT THE LD. A.O. HAD MAKE AN ERROR AND LD. CIT( A) JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 R.W. 147 WHEN ALL THE NOTICES WERE ISSUED & SERVED ON THE OLD ADDRESS WAS NOT A V ALID ISSUANCE OF NOTICE WHEN ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN INFORMATION MANY TIM ES ABOUT CHANGE HIS ADDRESS TO THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT EVEN VERY WELL EVEN BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 AND COMPLETION OF AS SESSMENT. 3. THAT THE LD. A.O. HAD ERROR IN PASSING THE ASSES SMENT AND CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT WHEN THE LD. A.O. OF SRI 3 ITA NO.252/JODH/2018 & S.A. NO.06/JODH/2018 SHRI AMAND DEEP SINGH VS. ITO GANGANAGAR (RAJASTHAN) HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE PROPER JURISDICTION COMES UNDER THE PUNJAB STATE ASSESSEE OFFICER. MOREOVER WHEN THIS FACT WAS ADMITTED BY LD . A.O. HIMSELF DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 4. THAT THE LD. A.O. HAD ERROR IN ISSUANCE OF NOTIC E U/S 148 ON THE BASIS OF REPORT OF ANOTHER LD. A.O. WITHOUT HAVING ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL, ON NON SPEAKING REASONS, WITHOUT ANY INDE PENDENT SATISFACTION, ON THE BASIS OF SURMISES OR CONJECTUR ES OR FOR MAKING INVESTIGATION OR MORE ENQUIRIES. 5. THAT THE LD. A.O. HAD ERROR IN RECORDING NON SPE AKING REASONS, IRRELEVANT, INAPPLICABLE, VAGUE, NON GERMANE TO FAC TS, REASONS WHICH WERE NON CONFIRMING THE REQUIREMENTS OF LAW AND WRO NG REASONS FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 . 6. THAT THE LD. CIT HAD ALSO MADE AN ERROR IN GIVIN G APPROVAL WHEN THE REASONS ARE IRRELEVANT, INAPPLICABLE, VAGUE, NO N GERMANE TO FACTS AND WRONG AND NON SPEAKING, WITHOUT HAVING ANY EVID ENCE AND LD. A.O. HAD NOT HAVING ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL FOR ESCAP EMENT OF INCOME. APPROVAL GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT ONLY AN MECHANICAL AP PROVAL. 7. THAT THE LD. A.O. FAILED TO ESTABLISHED / PROVE THAT THE AMOUNT INVESTED BY THE PROPERTY IS FROM HIS UNDISCLOSED IN COME AND MAKING THE ADDITION U/S 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. NO INFOR MATION WHATSOEVER IN NATURE REGARDING SOURCE OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMEN T HAD BEEN GIVEN IN REASONS OR NOT MENTIONED IN ASSESSMENT. SO ADDIT ION CANNOT BE UPHELD ON THIS GROUND. 8. THAT THE LD. A.O. HAD FAILED TO MADE THE ADDITIO N ON THE BASIS OF RECORDED REASONS. IF NO ADDITION HAD BEEN MADE OUT ON THE BASIS OF RECORDED REASONS THEN NO INDEPENDENT ADDITION CAN B E MADE. 9. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE AND SANCTION OF THE H ONBLE ITAT TO FILE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, IF SO REQUIRED FOR PROPER PROSECUTION OF THE CASE, BASED ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH HAS NOT BEE N OR COULD NOT BE PRODUCED OR FILED BEFORE LOWER AUTHORITIES EITHER B ECAUSE PROPER AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT PROVIDED OR BECAUSE IT WAS NOT SOLICITED OR ITS NEED WAS NOT APPRECIATED. 10. THAT THE ASSESSEE CRAVES LEAVE TO ALTER, AMEND OR WITHDRAW ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL HEREIN OR ADD ANY FURT HER GROUNDS AS MAY BE CONSIDERED NECESSARY AND TO SUBMIT SUCH STATEMEN TS, DOCUMENTS AND PAPERS AS MAY BE CONSIDERED NECESSARY EITHER BE FORE OR DURING THE APPEAL HEARING.' THE LD. CIT(A), WITHOUT DECIDING THE APPEAL ON MERI TS, AFFIRMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY CONFIRMING THE VALIDITY OF NOTICES U/S 148 AND 142(1) OF THE ACT AS WELL AS THE JURISDICTION OF TH E AO AT BIKANER. 4 ITA NO.252/JODH/2018 & S.A. NO.06/JODH/2018 SHRI AMAND DEEP SINGH VS. ITO 3. THE ASSESSEE, BEING AGGRIEVED, PREFERRED THE INSTA NT APPEAL. 4. HAVING HEARD THE PARTIES AT LENGTH AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS EMPHASIZ ED BY SH. VIKASH CHHABRA, THE LD. AR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO JURISDICTION TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE ASSES SEE BEING AN AGRICULTURIST LIVING IN VILLAGE BAKAINWALA, DISTT. FAZILKA (PUNJAB), WHEREAS THE STATUTORY NOTICES HAVE BEEN ISSUED AT T HE PARENTAL HOUSE AT VILLAGE,3-Y, SRI GANGANAGAR (RAJSTHAN) AND AFFIX TURE OF NOTICE WAS ALSO MADE AT 3-Y, SRIGANGANAGAR ONLY. IT IS AN ADMI TTED CASE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAD WRITTEN A LETTER DATE D 12.09.2016 TO THE ITO, WARD-1, (2), ABHOR FOR TRANSFERRING THE JURISD ICTION OF THE CASES PERTAINING TO ASSESSEE AND HIS FATHER SH. JAGDEV SI NGH FOR APPROPRIATE ACTIONS BUT THE SAME WERE RETURNED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD- 2(4), ABHOR ON THE PRETEXT THAT ORDER FOR TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION AS PER SEC. 127 OF THE ACT IS NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD THER EFORE APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE POSSIBLE. IT WAS FURTHER REAS ONED THAT NOTICE U/S 148 HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANG ANAGAR, THEREFORE, THE ORIGINAL RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE HAV E BEEN RETURNED TO THE ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANGANAGAR. 4.1 FROM THE RECORD, IT IS CLEAR THAT PROPERTY AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 HAVE BEEN INITIATED INDISPUTABLY SITUATES AT PUNJAB, TRANSACTIONS HAVE ALSO BEEN COM PLETED AT PUNJAB AND THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER (PB PAGE-3) DULY I NFORMED THE ITO, WARD-1, SRI GANGANAGAR ABOUT HIS SHIFTING AT VILLAG E, BAKEINWALA, DISTT: FAZILKA (PUNJAB). FURTHER FROM THE ASSESSEE S LETTER SENT ON DATED 24.12.2016 TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1, SRI GANGANAGAR (PB PAGE-46), IT CLEARLY REFLECTS THAT THE ASSESSEE AGAIN AND AGAIN APPRISED ABOUT THE JURISDICTION TO THE ASSESSING OF FICER AND SUBMITTED 5 ITA NO.252/JODH/2018 & S.A. NO.06/JODH/2018 SHRI AMAND DEEP SINGH VS. ITO THAT HIS INCOME TAX JURISDICTION FALLS WITHIN THE S TATE OF PUNJAB AND FURTHER ALSO ASKED THE DETAILS OF INFORMATION AGAIN ST HIM. THE SAID LETTER HAS BEEN MENTIONED AS DULY RECEIVED ON 27.12 .2016 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF, H OWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER STILL FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT AGAIN ST THE ASSESSEE AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.18,58,780/-, SO QUESTION EME RGES AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD THE JURISDICTION TO INITIATE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT . 4.2 LET US TO PERUSE THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW, W HICH DEALS WITH THE JURISDICTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER. '[JURISDICTION OF ASSESSING OFFICERS.] 124. (1) WHERE BY VIRTUE OF ANY DIRECTION OR ORDER ISSU ED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OR SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 120, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN VESTED WITH JURISDICTION OVER ANY AREA, WITHIN THE LIMITS OF SUCH AREA, HE SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION (A) IN RESPECT OF ANY PERSON CARRYING ON A BUSINESS OR PROFESSION, IF THE PLACE AT WHICH HE CARRIES ON HIS BUSINESS OR PROFESSION IS SITUATE WITHIN THE AREA, OR WHERE HIS BUSINESS OR PROFESSION IS CARRIED ON IN MORE PLACES THAN ONE, IF THE PRINCIPAL PLACE OF HIS BUSINESS OR PROFESSION IS SITUATE WITHIN THE AREA , AND (B) IN RESPECT OF ANY OTHER PERSON RESIDING WITHIN THE AREA. (2) WHERE A QUESTION ARISES UNDER THIS SECTION AS T O WHETHER AN ASSESSING OFFICER HAS JURISDICTION TO ASSESS ANY PE RSON, THE QUESTION SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE [PRINCIPAL DIR ECTOR GENERAL OR] DIRECTOR GENERAL OR THE [PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMIS SIONER OR] CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR THE [PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR] COM MISSIONER; OR WHERE THE QUESTION IS ONE RELATING TO AREAS WITH IN THE JURISDICTION OF DIFFERENT [PRINCIPAL DIRECTORS GENE RAL OR] DIRECTORS GENERAL OR [PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OR] CHIE F COMMISSIONERS OR [PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONERS OR] COMMI SSIONERS, BY THE [PRINCIPAL DIRECTORS GENERAL OR] DIRECTORS G ENERAL OR [PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONERS OR] CHIEF COMMISSION ERS OR 6 ITA NO.252/JODH/2018 & S.A. NO.06/JODH/2018 SHRI AMAND DEEP SINGH VS. ITO [PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONERS OR] COMMISSIONERS CONCERNE D OR, IF THEY ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT, BY THE BOARD OR BY SUCH [PRIN CIPAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OR] DIRECTOR GENERAL OR [PRINCIPAL CHIEF CO MMISSIONER OR] CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR [PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR] C OMMISSIONER AS THE BOARD MAY, BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL G AZETTE, SPECIFY. (3) NO PERSON SHALL BE ENTITLED TO CALL IN QUESTION THE JURISDICTION OF AN ASSESSING OFFICER (A) WHERE HE HAS MADE A RETURN [UNDER SUB-SECTION ( 1) OF SECTION 115WD OR] UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE ON WHIC H HE WAS SERVED WITH A NOTICE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF S ECTION 142 OR [SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 115WE OR] SUB-SE CTION (2) OF SECTION 143 OR AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSES SMENT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER; (B) WHERE HE HAS MADE NO SUCH RETURN, AFTER THE EXP IRY OF THE TIME ALLOWED BY THE NOTICE UNDER [SUBSECTION (2 ) OF SECTION 115WD OR SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 OR UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 115WH OR UNDER SECTION 1 48 FOR THE MAKING OF THE RETURN OR BY THE NOTICE UNDER THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 115WF OR UNDER THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 144] TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE ASSESSMENT SHOUL D NOT BE COMPLETED TO THE BEST OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. (4) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (3), W HERE AN ASSESSEE CALLS IN QUESTION THE JURISDICTION OF AN A SSESSING OFFICER, THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL, IF NOT S ATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM, REFER THE MATTER FOR DETE RMINATION UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT IS MADE. (5) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECT ION OR IN ANY DIRECTION OR ORDER ISSUED UNDER SECTION 120, EVERY ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL HAVE ALL THE POWERS CONFERRED BY OR U NDER THIS ACT ON AN ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME AC CRUING OR ARISING OR RECEIVED WITHIN THE AREA, IF ANY, OVER W HICH HE HAS BEEN VESTED WITH JURISDICTION BY VIRTUE OF THE DIRE CTIONS OR ORDERS ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OR SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 120.]' FROM THE PROVISIONS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS THE JURISDICTION OF THE AREA WHERE ANY PERSON IS CARRYI NG ON A BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. FURTHER AT THE PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSIN ESS OR PROFESSION SITUATES WITHIN AREA , IF THE PERSON IS CARRYING ON BUSINESS OR PROFESSION 7 ITA NO.252/JODH/2018 & S.A. NO.06/JODH/2018 SHRI AMAND DEEP SINGH VS. ITO IN MORE PLACES THAN ONE. THE PROVISION FURTHER PRES CRIBED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN VESTED WITH THE JURISDIC TION OVER ANY AREA OF OTHER PERSON RESIDING WITHIN THE AREA. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE NOTICE DATED 31.03.2016 U/S 148 HAS E VER BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AT HIS PROPER ADDRESS AT PUNJAB. 4.3 WE HAVE AGAIN PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND REA LIZED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 12.09.2016 TRANSFERRED THE ASSESSEE'S AND HIS FATHER CASE TO THE ITO, WARD-1(2), ABHOR (PUNJAB), WHICH WERE RETURNED BACK BY THE ITO , WARD-2(4), ABHOR. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT MENTI ON THE SAID FACTS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW ONCE I T WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ITSELF THAT HE HAD NO JURISDI CTION AND THEREFORE TRANSFERRED THE ASSESSEE'S CASE FOR APPROPRIATE ACT IONS TO THE ITO, WARD-1, ABHOR, HOWEVER ON RETURNING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON TECHNICAL GROUND, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAIN ASSUM ED JURISDICTION WITHOUT DISCLOSING AS TO HOW AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMS TANCES, HE HAS JURISDICTION TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE AS SESSEE. CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE PROPE RTIES AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT SITUATES IN PUNJAB, TRANSACTIONS HAVE ALSO BEEN HEL D AT PUNJAB AND ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO RESIDING IN PUNJAB, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, WA RD-1, SRI GANGANAGAR, HAD NO JURISDICTION TO FRAME THE SUBJEC TED ASSESSMENT, CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT STANDS IN THE EYES OF LAW FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. 4.4 THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CHALLENGED THE ORD ER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THE BASIS OF REASONS RECORDED U/S 147 OF THE ACT, HOWEVER AS WE ARE INCLINED TO QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE LACK 8 ITA NO.252/JODH/2018 & S.A. NO.06/JODH/2018 SHRI AMAND DEEP SINGH VS. ITO OF JURISDICTION HENCE WOULD NOT FEEL IT APPROPRIATE TO DWELL UPON THE OTHER ASPECTS SUCH AS REASONS RECORDED U/S 147 AND OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. STAY APPLICATION NO.06/JODH/2018 6. AS WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE IN HIS FAVOUR AND QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF, THE REFORE, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF ASSESSEE'S APPEAL, THE STAY APPLICA TION BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS, HENCE NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION AND STANDS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ST ANDS ALLOWED AND STAY APPLICATION NO.06/JODH/2018 , STANDS DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01.05.2019. SD/- SD/- (N.K.SAINI) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) VICE PRESIDENT JU DICIAL MEMBER DATED:01/05/2019 PK/PS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR